3 ms·

> So, since they participated in PRISM, they shouldn't do anything else to improve trust? Since they participated in PRISM-level trust violation, they can't im

> So, since they participated in PRISM, they shouldn't do anything else to improve trust? Since they participated in PRISM-level trust violation, they can't improve trust at the level of guaranteeing no easter eggs. It would be like cheating on a spouse and then building back trust by promising and delivering on a "no practical jokes" policy.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> It would be like cheating on a spouse and then building back trust by promising and delivering on a "no practical jokes" policy. Well, it’s a start
roenxi 6y ago
If we follow that train of logic, what exactly is the complaint? That they implemented any software at all instead of full-time internal advocacy against PRISM? They aren't being paid to implement Easter eggs. The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise.
- stirfish 6y ago
  >That they implemented any software at all instead of full-time internal advocacy against PRISM? Yes.
- jancsika 6y ago
  > The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise. You must be trolling me. The article as written is completely different than the article as written plus something like what I quoted from you pasted at the bottom.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    Sorry if the argument was too subtle. The article is arguing that there is a proper engineering choice to be made (Do I include Easter Eggs? No, primarily because it is an unnecessary bug vector that erodes user trust). The root of this thread is an argument observation that users shouldn't trust the software anyway. Fair enough, that is certainly true. But there isn't a choice for MS about whether they help with PRISM. The US government is going to force them to. In a framework of what decisions the developer makes there are no choices to be made - they have to implement PRISM. It isn't reasonable to argue about something outside their sphere of influence when assessing what principles are good and bad. PRISM doesn't erode anyone's trust in the competence of Microsoft's engineering, it is just a general erosion of trust in American software. Nothing MS can do about it. I'm arguing that the article should be seen as trust in engineering competence. Not trust in the abstract.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

> It would be like cheating on a spouse and then building back trust by promising and delivering on a "no practical jokes" policy. Well, it’s a start

roenxi 6y ago

If we follow that train of logic, what exactly is the complaint? That they implemented any software at all instead of full-time internal advocacy against PRISM? They aren't being paid to implement Easter eggs. The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise.

stirfish 6y ago
>That they implemented any software at all instead of full-time internal advocacy against PRISM? Yes.
jancsika 6y ago
> The job is to produce software that effectively helps users within bounds of the law. The government says they have to spy on their users, so it isn't like Microsoft can do otherwise. You must be trolling me. The article as written is completely different than the article as written plus something like what I quoted from you pasted at the bottom.
- roenxi 6y ago
  Sorry if the argument was too subtle. The article is arguing that there is a proper engineering choice to be made (Do I include Easter Eggs? No, primarily because it is an unnecessary bug vector that erodes user trust). The root of this thread is an argument observation that users shouldn't trust the software anyway. Fair enough, that is certainly true. But there isn't a choice for MS about whether they help with PRISM. The US government is going to force them to. In a framework of what decisions the developer makes there are no choices to be made - they have to implement PRISM. It isn't reasonable to argue about something outside their sphere of influence when assessing what principles are good and bad. PRISM doesn't erode anyone's trust in the competence of Microsoft's engineering, it is just a general erosion of trust in American software. Nothing MS can do about it. I'm arguing that the article should be seen as trust in engineering competence. Not trust in the abstract.